Maybe that is because the RFL don't actually decide an awful lot in our game? The major decisions all seem to be made by the Superleague clubs. Take the u20s disbanding, for example. The RFL have gone on record recently as suggesting an age limit. The Superleague clubs refused and so no age limit was set. The more I think about the number of times I have read in a statement/article or heard in an interview that 'the Superleague clubs voted to keep it/have it/reject it' the more I realise that our governing body doesn't seem to actually have any teeth. I no longer know what it actually decides. Does anyone here know what it actually decides?

Maybe that is because the RFL don't actually decide an awful lot in our game? The major decisions all seem to be made by the Superleague clubs. Take the u20s disbanding, for example. The RFL have gone on record recently as suggesting an age limit. The Superleague clubs refused and so no age limit was set. The more I think about the number of times I have read in a statement/article or heard in an interview that 'the Superleague clubs voted to keep it/have it/reject it' the more I realise that our governing body doesn't seem to actually have any teeth. I no longer know what it actually decides. Does anyone here know what it actually decides?

Truly brilliant observation.....

The RFL can go and decide "whatever" but as long as several real "SUPER" super league club chairmen have a teensy weensy bit of influence because it's the games between their clubs that secure SKY super league TV contracts, that in turn secure Rugby League, that in turn supports the survival of the game......

The failure to ensure targets were met to enable continuing Sport England funding and , as a result the retrenchment currently taking place in the amateur game, is a very bad outcome, for which the RFL, as architects of the player production plan put in place, are ultimately responsible.

The Twinning, A team, feeder team, whatever name you care to apportion to the process is ruining the Championships as an independent, competitive competition and is a get out of gaol card for SL clubs, so that they do not need to fund junior teams, is a discriminatory action to support the SL and not in the best interests of the Championships, whose integrity they are ruining.

Fundamentally when the RFL took the decision to sign the SKY contract we have discussed at length on here and concluded was SADLY the right decision for the game it was always going to blow a hole in the clubs below that elite. As long as the SKY contract isn't enough to fully resource an Elite league the Elite will always look to take whatever resources they can from the Championship.

So they buy Zac Hardaker, they sell Bulls season tickets in Batley and they use Hunslet as an "A" team.

They can't do that and so they have had to take the rough decisions that get them such a bad name with the Championship fans.

Haven't you noticed it's all the fans of the championship clubs who still hold out some hope their clubs will one day be in SL are the ones calling the RFL the most and questioning Mr. Wood's dietary practices.

Maybe the judges of the awards will take into account how darn hard running RL must be in such terrible circumstances where you have to fight against soccer's massively overwhelming popularity, and when you manage to have a minority interested in the handling game you have to fight the Rugby Union establishment for the interest of that minority.

Maybe the judges should chuck the RFL out because a small minority of people don't like the economic circumstances that drive the RFL's decision making, because their clubs suffer?

Is not just the Pro game the RFL have to run but the amateur game. There are many problems at this level A major concern for me even more so than the problems at SL/Championsip level is the development of the game at Grassroots level. We need to see more being done to help both heartland and development Leagues, clubs and schools. Its not just about money, though the cutting of Sport England money is a massive blow. Whats the plans for the future at Grassroots level? What does the RFL intend to do about development officers and growing as well as supporting the amateur nd junior game?

Where did I blame them for the cut in Sport England money? The RFL are responsible for the development and support of the game across England. There are many problems within the amateur and Junior game. The loss of Development officers in Key areas is down to the RFL. What is the plan to help the game at amateur level in the future? What does the RFL plan to do to help increase participation levels and also help get more money in to this area of ther game?

Fundamentally when the RFL took the decision to sign the SKY contract we have discussed at length on here and concluded was SADLY the right decision for the game it was always going to blow a hole in the clubs below that elite. As long as the SKY contract isn't enough to fully resource an Elite league the Elite will always look to take whatever resources they can from the Championship.

So they buy Zac Hardaker, they sell Bulls season tickets in Batley and they use Hunslet as an "A" team.

They can't do that and so they have had to take the rough decisions that get them such a bad name with the Championship fans.

Haven't you noticed it's all the fans of the championship clubs who still hold out some hope their clubs will one day be in SL are the ones calling the RFL the most and questioning Mr. Wood's dietary practices.

Maybe the judges of the awards will take into account how darn hard running RL must be in such terrible circumstances where you have to fight against soccer's massively overwhelming popularity, and when you manage to have a minority interested in the handling game you have to fight the Rugby Union establishment for the interest of that minority.

Maybe the judges should chuck the RFL out because a small minority of people don't like the economic circumstances that drive the RFL's decision making, because their clubs suffer?

Maybe the RFL are making the best out of a bad job. All the things you post are true. However, if they are supposed to be the stewards of the total game, destroying half of it to safeguards a small echelon at the top is hardly fulfilling their mission. They are not deserved of thi award.

If they need to go back to semi pro because they are incapable of persuading Sky to cough up more or because Sky are unwilling to increase funding, then, in the interests of the greater game, SL should be made to shoulder a share of the pain and indeed go back to part time if they can't hack it. If they had gone back to part time wages then maybe they could have kept their junior teams and left the Championships alone. They were doing better on the financial survival front than the SL anyway.

When the British army lost all of it's equipment but managed to extricate itself from Dunkirk because of the bravery and heroism of ordinary British citizens bailing out the British Government, it was considered a minor miracle and saved the army but it wasn't deserving of the military organisation of the year award.

In the same way extricating the SL from the mire of financial mismanagement at the cost of ruining two thirds of the leagues clubs in the championships and losing their equipment obtained to assist the amateur game ( sport England money ) is hardly the mark of an organisation worhty of the title of best in the country.

The fact is the that RFL is shortlisted for the Sport Governing Body of the Year. Only in our sport would this be seen as a cause for criticism rather than a reason for rejoicing.

The game is a predominantly Northern and working class creature. In those circles, we call a spade a spade. So, if the shoe dosn't fit in regards to this nomination, then, as a northerner and a working class person, I reserve the right to tell the truth as I see it.

I dont know the amateur game expertly, but I know a few people involved who have major concerns about things. Forcing clubs down the road to play Summer Rugby and having fixture lists with 3 or 4 week gaps etc. I hear many winter clubs using summer club players ,but then teams struggling when these players go back to their summer teams. I know a good number of players who have got fed up and gone playing Union in winter getting good money or playing cricket in summer giving up the game. The problems with development areas losing their Development officers etc. I dont know the answer as I dont know exactly what would be best for clubs and players as I only hear not see things.But I dont feel the RFL is serving the amateur game that well from what I hear from various people both who are at Heartland or Development clubs.

The game is a predominantly Northern and working class creature. In those circles, we call a spade a spade. So, if the shoe dosn't fit in regards to this nomination, then, as a northerner and a working class person, I reserve the right to tell the truth as I see it.

more like calling a spade a ###### shovel!

I think we are all in the same northern working class gutter. Its just some of us are looking at the stars!

The game is a predominantly Northern and working class creature. In those circles, we call a spade a spade. So, if the shoe dosn't fit in regards to this nomination, then, as a northerner and a working class person, I reserve the right to tell the truth as I see it.

I'm more Northern and way more working class than you and want to know how you decide this shoe doesn't fit? Because they are not perfect? Nobody is.A bunch of outsiders think so, and sadly for you they have a different opinion.